An Omniscient God

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by iambiguous »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 7:22 am
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 5:14 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:00 am

All known concepts (ideas) are concieved by I

I have an idea?

What is an idea I ask myself? I have no idea.

That is all I can know about I

The rest is a story, comparable to a dream. Nature never repeats exactly. Everything is changing, Nothing changes. :D

Free will is an idea, meaning there is nothing choosing or doing anything since nothing is all there is, that's the true meaning of the word FREE.

This nothingness appears as if it has an identity that can say I choose, but that's just the nature of knowledge within this inconceivable conception.
Again, from my own frame of mind, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

Who is I here and what is his or her idea? On this thread, pertaining to what particular context pertaining to what particular omniscient God? What if there are conflicting assessments of that idea? And, in the absence of an omniscient God, how are mere mortals to decide which idea is the optimal idea? Or, in fact, for some, the only rational idea there can be?

Their own? If so, what do they believe is true "in their head" and what can they demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe is true in turn?

Then [for me] back to the points "I" raise in the threads above. And of how your own sense of self given that particular set of circumstances overlaps or conflicts with mine.

But, again, that's just me. My own interest in discussing God [omniscient or otherwise] in a world teeming with both conflicting goods and contingency, chance and change. My own interest in exploring the tools of philosophy...when connecting the dots existentially between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then.

Not yours? Then we move on to others.
The idea that humans were given ''free will'' by God is incompatible with the idea of an Omniscient God.

Therefore, the only reason for human strife and trouble is a consequence of that simple division, albeit illusory.
Okay, have it your way: we move on to others. 8)
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:17 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:14 am

But omniscience is absolute by definition. That's what the prefix omni means.

Your God may not be omniscient and that's your business but not my business.
I always feel somewhat deflated when someone states to me "your God".

Nonetheless. What persuades you that God knows ALL of the future?
I am surprised! I thought "your God" would have the opposite effect and you would like to be not one of the herd.
Nah. I only expect that from some atheists. If there is a God, it is all OUR God, mine too.

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pmWhat persuades me that God knows all of the future? I have not defined what sort of God I was referring to. When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.

The description of God that includes His existence depends on our human endeavours would also include that God does not know the future, God having given us Free Will.

BTW I don't believe in any personal God and my arguments about God are academic.
I do believe in an attribute of the personal God, omniscience, however omniscience is impossible in the temporal relative world.
I find the above very confusing. So you are looking at different 'forms' of what could pertain to be God?

You agree that for us to have free will, God would not know the entire future, right?

When you state you do not believe in a personal God, you mean, ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? (which would it be)

What do you mean by this:- "When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable. "
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Dontaskme »

iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:39 pm
Okay, have it your way: we move on to others. 8)
''Others'' as in many ideas known. . . But Knowledge is division, it is to be aware you are aware, as and through knowledge, which in reality is an artificial divide caused by language itself. In reality, the external and inner world are inseparably one reality.

'Otherness' is the creators creation, insofar as there is no separation there dividing the thinker from the thought.

God is an idea of that which already is.

Infinite authors appear to only ONE reader.

It's that simple, unecessary detail has no place and need not apply.

Religion is a division, it's a gaping gap of the Gods and is why so many philosophers argue for their God truth. The gap is closed when one walks freely through the entrance into Nonduality. . a place most people refuse to go. But the gap is slowly getting thinner as more and more people come to accept and realise the truth.

God is just another word for Nothing, which is just another word for Everything. You have to die to understand this, because to understand something is a wanting something else other than what you already are and always is which needs no understanding since there simply isn't any.

It is the thought of you that has to die, not you, because you do not die because you are not born...only the mind is born, not you. The body parts do not know they live or die.

.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Belinda »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:07 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pm
attofishpi wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:17 am

I always feel somewhat deflated when someone states to me "your God".

Nonetheless. What persuades you that God knows ALL of the future?
I am surprised! I thought "your God" would have the opposite effect and you would like to be not one of the herd.
Nah. I only expect that from some atheists. If there is a God, it is all OUR God, mine too.

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pmWhat persuades me that God knows all of the future? I have not defined what sort of God I was referring to. When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.

The description of God that includes His existence depends on our human endeavours would also include that God does not know the future, God having given us Free Will.

BTW I don't believe in any personal God and my arguments about God are academic.
I do believe in an attribute of the personal God, omniscience, however omniscience is impossible in the temporal relative world.
I find the above very confusing. So you are looking at different 'forms' of what could pertain to be God?

You agree that for us to have free will, God would not know the entire future, right?

When you state you do not believe in a personal God, you mean, ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? (which would it be)

What do you mean by this:- "When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable. "
Nobody knows what the 'real' God might be. That is what the myth of Christ is about, that Christ was sent by God to interpret God to us, so that we know what God is in terms of real life. Including what to do so we may be Godly people(i.e a codified morality).

For us to have Free Will , God has made us different from the rest of nature which is deterministic. As it happens I don't believe in Free Will so my discussion of Free Will is academic.

I agree that when I say I don't believe in a personal God I mean "ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? "

I wrote and Atto quoted me:
"When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.
I mean, barring so-called 'Free Will', the idea of God is a deterministic idea.This may be changing and God may become existentialist God which is defined by believers' behaviour .

I'm not entirely an atheist as I believe in transcendent virtues, although these are not attached to any persona.

That virtues have been attached to personas (gods) is a matter of historical and anthropological record and is undeniable. Unfortunately these personas (gods) which are undoubtedly good as aids to prayer have also become reified and in some cases politicised.

____________________

As I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:07 am
Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pm
I am surprised! I thought "your God" would have the opposite effect and you would like to be not one of the herd.
Nah. I only expect that from some atheists. If there is a God, it is all OUR God, mine too.

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:12 pmWhat persuades me that God knows all of the future? I have not defined what sort of God I was referring to. When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.

The description of God that includes His existence depends on our human endeavours would also include that God does not know the future, God having given us Free Will.

BTW I don't believe in any personal God and my arguments about God are academic.
I do believe in an attribute of the personal God, omniscience, however omniscience is impossible in the temporal relative world.
I find the above very confusing. So you are looking at different 'forms' of what could pertain to be God?

You agree that for us to have free will, God would not know the entire future, right?

When you state you do not believe in a personal God, you mean, ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? (which would it be)

What do you mean by this:- "When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable. "
Nobody knows what the 'real' God might be. That is what the myth of Christ is about, that Christ was sent by God to interpret God to us, so that we know what God is in terms of real life. Including what to do so we may be Godly people(i.e a codified morality).

For us to have Free Will , God has made us different from the rest of nature which is deterministic. As it happens I don't believe in Free Will so my discussion of Free Will is academic.
It then follows, that you should discard the prior statement about Christ, since there would be no purpose in him being sent by God - as we don't have any free will. To think that he was sent by God to sacrifice himself to insist on our actions being improved renders the entire painful excercise, moot.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI agree that when I say I don't believe in a personal God I mean "ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? "
But I did question of which it would be (in your opinion), that a God could not, or would not?

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI wrote and Atto quoted me:
"When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.
I mean, barring so-called 'Free Will', the idea of God is a deterministic idea.
Sure, I'd agree with determinism, but not that the God of Christ is omniscient of the entire future. I know it can cause events in the future to exist, even against whatever will a man may have. Not sure if that helps, but generally the God of Christ allows free-will within a cause and effect, determined reality.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmThis may be changing and God may become existentialist God which is defined by believers' behaviour .
I'm not entirely an atheist as I believe in transcendent virtues, although these are not attached to any persona.
That virtues have been attached to personas (gods) is a matter of historical and anthropological record and is undeniable. Unfortunately these personas (gods) which are undoubtedly good as aids to prayer have also become reified and in some cases politicised.
Ok.

____________________
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmAs I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
Nor am I, at least from what I just looked up regarding the term, mystic.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pm As I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
The term "mystic" has in fact now an ambiguous meaning.
This word has undergone a deterioration over the centuries.
Mythic experience thus ended up becoming a synonym of suggestion, mirage, illusion, if not worse...

But authentic mysticism is none of this. Instead, it is an authentic philosophical meditation.
Which does nothing but continue the path of that one great philosophy that has accompanied humanity since its dawn.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Belinda »

bobmax wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 3:05 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pm As I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
The term "mystic" has in fact now an ambiguous meaning.
This word has undergone a deterioration over the centuries.
Mythic experience thus ended up becoming a synonym of suggestion, mirage, illusion, if not worse...

But authentic mysticism is none of this. Instead, it is an authentic philosophical meditation.
Which does nothing but continue the path of that one great philosophy that has accompanied humanity since its dawn.
I don't confuse mystical experiences with myths, and I don't expect philosophers to do so .(I guess your "mythic" was a typo error). I don't doubt there are authentic mystics but mystical experiences seem to resist experimental conditions.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Belinda »

attofishpi wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 1:08 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:07 am

Nah. I only expect that from some atheists. If there is a God, it is all OUR God, mine too.




I find the above very confusing. So you are looking at different 'forms' of what could pertain to be God?

You agree that for us to have free will, God would not know the entire future, right?

When you state you do not believe in a personal God, you mean, ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? (which would it be)

What do you mean by this:- "When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable. "
Nobody knows what the 'real' God might be. That is what the myth of Christ is about, that Christ was sent by God to interpret God to us, so that we know what God is in terms of real life. Including what to do so we may be Godly people(i.e a codified morality).

For us to have Free Will , God has made us different from the rest of nature which is deterministic. As it happens I don't believe in Free Will so my discussion of Free Will is academic.
It then follows, that you should discard the prior statement about Christ, since there would be no purpose in him being sent by God - as we don't have any free will. To think that he was sent by God to sacrifice himself to insist on our actions being improved renders the entire painful excercise, moot.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI agree that when I say I don't believe in a personal God I mean "ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? "
But I did question of which it would be (in your opinion), that a God could not, or would not?

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI wrote and Atto quoted me:
"When I claimed God knows all of the future I meant the description of God that includes God and His word are inseparable.
I mean, barring so-called 'Free Will', the idea of God is a deterministic idea.
Sure, I'd agree with determinism, but not that the God of Christ is omniscient of the entire future. I know it can cause events in the future to exist, even against whatever will a man may have. Not sure if that helps, but generally the God of Christ allows free-will within a cause and effect, determined reality.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmThis may be changing and God may become existentialist God which is defined by believers' behaviour .
I'm not entirely an atheist as I believe in transcendent virtues, although these are not attached to any persona.
That virtues have been attached to personas (gods) is a matter of historical and anthropological record and is undeniable. Unfortunately these personas (gods) which are undoubtedly good as aids to prayer have also become reified and in some cases politicised.
Ok.

____________________
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmAs I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
Nor am I, at least from what I just looked up regarding the term, mystic.
I hope you looked up a reliable source.'Mystic' has become a degraded word in many cases.

My understanding of the myth of Christ obviously is different from yours, however I can understand if you object to the myth due to the human sacrifice component.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by iambiguous »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:54 am
iambiguous wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 4:39 pm
Okay, have it your way: we move on to others. 8)
''Others'' as in many ideas known. . . But Knowledge is division, it is to be aware you are aware, as and through knowledge, which in reality is an artificial divide caused by language itself. In reality, the external and inner world are inseparably one reality.

'Otherness' is the creators creation, insofar as there is no separation there dividing the thinker from the thought.

God is an idea of that which already is.

Infinite authors appear to only ONE reader.

It's that simple, unecessary detail has no place and need not apply.

Religion is a division, it's a gaping gap of the Gods and is why so many philosophers argue for their God truth. The gap is closed when one walks freely through the entrance into Nonduality. . a place most people refuse to go. But the gap is slowly getting thinner as more and more people come to accept and realise the truth.

God is just another word for Nothing, which is just another word for Everything. You have to die to understand this, because to understand something is a wanting something else other than what you already are and always is which needs no understanding since there simply isn't any.

It is the thought of you that has to die, not you, because you do not die because you are not born...only the mind is born, not you. The body parts do not know they live or die.

.
"Again, from my own frame of mind, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

Or, given this thread's subject, a "general description spiritual contraption".

Me, I'm only really interested in those who believe "in their head" that an omniscient God does in fact exist.

Their own God, for example.

Now, if they take a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" to this God, fine. After all, for any number of personal reasons rooted [in my view] in dasein, particular individuals are able to do this.

And I certainly respect their leap of faith because what can I possibly know about the lives they lived predisposing them to?

Instead, it is those who go beyond an existential leap of faith -- or a "wager" -- and insist that they know that their own God does in fact exist that most intrigue me.

And that He is in fact omniscient.

That's when the discussion shifts [for me] to these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

This and reconciling God's omniscience with human autonomy.

Then back to the part where others move on to someone else if they are not interested in taking up the concerns that most interest me.

Given particular sets of circumstances that precipitate conflicting assessments of right and wrong, good and evil, true and false.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Dontaskme »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:32 pm
"Again, from my own frame of mind, this is what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

Or, given this thread's subject, a "general description spiritual contraption".

Me, I'm only really interested in those who believe "in their head" that an omniscient God does in fact exist.

Their own God, for example.

Now, if they take a Kierkegaardian "leap of faith" to this God, fine. After all, for any number of personal reasons rooted [in my view] in dasein, particular individuals are able to do this.

And I certainly respect their leap of faith because what can I possibly know about the lives they lived predisposing them to?

Instead, it is those who go beyond an existential leap of faith -- or a "wager" -- and insist that they know that their own God does in fact exist that most intrigue me.

And that He is in fact omniscient.

That's when the discussion shifts [for me] to these factors:

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of your God or religious/spiritual path
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths to immortality and salvation were/are championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why yours?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and your own particular God or religious/spiritual path

This and reconciling God's omniscience with human autonomy.

Then back to the part where others move on to someone else if they are not interested in taking up the concerns that most interest me.

Given particular sets of circumstances that precipitate conflicting assessments of right and wrong, good and evil, true and false.
All Philosophers, me included, are full of romantic poetry about the entity known as God. But this mentally projected entity has zero value other than the functional value the human microphone wants to project. Projection is the process by which the ''thinker'' is created. When no thought about the world is present, the thinker does not exist. The world of objects do indeed exist, and this matter is what creates the idea there is a you looking at it, and you have no idea what it is, except what you believe to be there using the knowledge you already have about it.


All that is known to exist philosophically speaking is poetic knowledge, aka dead stuff, a stuff that can never touch what is actually the immediate living moment. Nothing can know what anything is, except to describe what is in a poetic way. If the living immediate moment knew itself, it would never have any need or want to describe itself.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by bobmax »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:56 pm I don't confuse mystical experiences with myths, and I don't expect philosophers to do so .(I guess your "mythic" was a typo error). I don't doubt there are authentic mystics but mystical experiences seem to resist experimental conditions.
Yes it was a typo, sorry.

Regarding mystical experiences, I would like to observe that they are not essential.
They may have really happened, or they may have been mere dreams, and never even happened, it doesn't matter.
What matters is what happens in the mystic.
And the mystic can be anyone, even without having had any particular experience.

To be so, it is enough to start questioning the obvious.
This is enough for the world to appear in a new light.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by attofishpi »

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 7:02 pm
attofishpi wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 1:08 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pm
Nobody knows what the 'real' God might be. That is what the myth of Christ is about, that Christ was sent by God to interpret God to us, so that we know what God is in terms of real life. Including what to do so we may be Godly people(i.e a codified morality).

For us to have Free Will , God has made us different from the rest of nature which is deterministic. As it happens I don't believe in Free Will so my discussion of Free Will is academic.
It then follows, that you should discard the prior statement about Christ, since there would be no purpose in him being sent by God - as we don't have any free will. To think that he was sent by God to sacrifice himself to insist on our actions being improved renders the entire painful excercise, moot.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI agree that when I say I don't believe in a personal God I mean "ok a God might exist but could not, or would not make its self aware to a human? "
But I did question of which it would be (in your opinion), that a God could not, or would not?

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmI wrote and Atto quoted me:

I mean, barring so-called 'Free Will', the idea of God is a deterministic idea.
Sure, I'd agree with determinism, but not that the God of Christ is omniscient of the entire future. I know it can cause events in the future to exist, even against whatever will a man may have. Not sure if that helps, but generally the God of Christ allows free-will within a cause and effect, determined reality.

Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmThis may be changing and God may become existentialist God which is defined by believers' behaviour .
I'm not entirely an atheist as I believe in transcendent virtues, although these are not attached to any persona.
That virtues have been attached to personas (gods) is a matter of historical and anthropological record and is undeniable. Unfortunately these personas (gods) which are undoubtedly good as aids to prayer have also become reified and in some cases politicised.
Ok.

____________________
Belinda wrote: Fri Jun 17, 2022 12:37 pmAs I sort of said before, I respect mystical experiences and mystics themselves.I don't happen to be a mystic so I cannot base my beliefs on mystical experience.
Nor am I, at least from what I just looked up regarding the term, mystic.
I hope you looked up a reliable source.'Mystic' has become a degraded word in many cases.

My understanding of the myth of Christ obviously is different from yours, however I can understand if you object to the myth due to the human sacrifice component.
No, I have no idea why you are suggesting that. Also Belinda, many points\questions you have overlooked in that quote.

Could you clear up something for me. Of all the people on the forum, I am still unscertain as to your stance\belief with regards to God. Sometimes I think you are agnostic atheist, then agnostic theist, then pantheist...none of the above! Would you care to outline any belief in God that you may have?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Belinda »

Thanks for asking, Atto.

I believe in certain values that transcend all attempts at definition: good, truth, beauty.

If these are God then I believe in God. I do not believe there is such a thing as a SUPERNATURAL PERSON. I do believe in and trust in good, truth, beauty.

Good, truth, beauty are not all-powerful and it's our responsibility to create them or discover them in the world.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by Dontaskme »

Can god make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it? The short answer is no, He can not. But the question is based on a false premise due to a lack of understanding about the nature of God.

No thing ever questions, if it could, it would already have the answer, because the idea there is a question here implies there is a questioner ...but there is no questioner here nor there except the knowledge in this illusory mental divide that is conception.

God does not question what is already whole and complete. The question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer... Questions can only arise to the artificial sense there is a separate self...In reality, there is no separation anywhere as all is one, except in this conception, the illusory mental divide.


The great big heavy rock known as planet earth is suspended in space, it seems to be a constant presence. What's keeping this rock constantly suspended in space is the dynamics of space itself. There is nowhere for this rock to be other than where it is always and forever as long as it is conceptually known by the only knowing there is.

This knowing, never moves, it never goes anywhere, there is nowhere for it to go, knowing is always herenow, nowhere. There is only now-here all at once, one without a second.
bobmax
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2022 7:38 am

Re: An Omniscient God

Post by bobmax »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jun 18, 2022 10:45 am Can god make a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it? The short answer is no, He can not. But the question is based on a false premise due to a lack of understanding about the nature of God.

No thing ever questions, if it could, it would already have the answer, because the idea there is a question here implies there is a questioner ...but there is no questioner here nor there except the knowledge in this illusory mental divide that is conception.

God does not question what is already whole and complete. The question is frequently asked by skeptics of God, the Bible, Christianity, etc. If God can create a rock that He cannot lift, then God is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it, then God is not omnipotent. According to this argument, omnipotence is self-contradictory. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent.

But the explanation is far more important to understand than the answer... Questions can only arise to the artificial sense there is a separate self...In reality, there is no separation anywhere as all is one, except in this conception, the illusory mental divide.

The great big heavy rock known as planet earth is suspended in space, it seems to be a constant presence. What's keeping this rock constantly suspended in space is the dynamics of space itself. There is nowhere for this rock to be other than where it is always and forever as long as it is conceptually known by the only knowing there is.

This knowing, never moves, it never goes anywhere, there is nowhere for it to go, knowing is always herenow, nowhere. There is only now-here all at once, one without a second.
This is the meaning of Anselm of Aosta's ontological proof. A proof that certainly could not be logical-rational, because it concerns what is the basis of every possible reasoning.
It's so evident...

Yet Thomas Aquinas, as well as many others, fail to see this.
Post Reply